I agree. We've become paranoid about every little defect. With film, we couldn't fix 'em, so we didn't worry. I refuse to agonize over minutiae. The only time I have problems with fringing is in the case you mentioned below: Backlit tree branches in winter. Ditto for backlit birds against the sky. The shot of the woodpecker that I posted last night required some fringe removal. It took all of about three minutes. Paul On Apr 14, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Mark Erickson wrote:
> Brendan's post and the response bring up an interesting issue that > seems to > increasingly dominate the digital photography world--pixel peeping and > hunting for defects. It is easy to zoom up to 200% and tear apart > an image, > but how much of the defects we observe will actually show up in > real world > applications? > > For example, the DPReview Pentax SLR forum has had several VPN > (vertical > pattern noise) threads lately. Basically, if you crank the ISO way > up, > shoot in very low light, then amplify the shadow areas in Photoshop > you'll > see patterns in the noise. My *ist-Ds does it, but I never noticed > it until > I went looking for it. My ultimate conclusion is, "So what?" It's > like the > old joke where the patient says, "Doctor, it hurts when I do XXXX," > and the > doctor responds, "So don't do XXXX". > > I know that blooming and CA can be pretty obvious in certain > situations > (e.g., backlit tree branches in winter). In less contrasty cases, > you may > be able to find it if you go looking for it. If it's not obtrusive, > however, why worry so much about it? > > Just a thought.... > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
